Hundreds of animals rescued from Fenelon Falls house fire

(LINDSAY) A Fenelon Falls woman facing 12 charges under the Prevention of Cruelty Against Animals Act, following a small house fire in 2011, will have to wait until March 8 to know how her case will proceed.
Fire crews from three divisions were called to the fire on Jan. 29, 2011, bringing it quickly under control. They also discovered hundreds of animals inside the home, which led to the charges being laid against Irina Cielecki.
Investigation led officials to determine that the fire was caused by an equipment malfunction and damage to the house was estimated at $15,000 at the time.
Ultimately, the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty Against Animals reached out to 50 communities across the province to help with the animals in the short and long term.
Witnesses testified, in the first day of trial on Thursday, that an overwhelming stench of feces and urine greeted those who entered the Queen Street home, with the smell of ammonia so strong that it burned to breathe. One witness testified there was what he thought was a mixture of feces and water on the floors between one and seven centimetres thick. Two rooms were crammed with hundreds of animals, some in cages stacked up to six or seven feet high with feces overflowing the sides, court heard.
Though no witness seemed to be able to precisely say the total number of animals in the house, witnesses testified that between 50 and 75 cats were roaming around the house. Court heard there were also more than 100 birds in cages, possibly 40 to 100 crammed in a cage made for four to six birds in one case, as well as about 50 rabbits and more than 50 “pocket pets” including gerbils, hamsters, guinea pigs, rats and chinchillas.
Court also heard that Ms Cielecki was allowed to take away several dogs from the scene without the direct knowledge of the OSPCA.
Ms Cielecki was facing one count each of permitting an animal to be in distress for cats, birds, rodents and rabbits, one count each of failing to provide the prescribed standards of care by failing to provide adequate, appropriate sanitary conditions for cats, birds, rodents and rabbits and one count each of failing to provide the prescribed standards of care by failing to provide adequate and appropriate ventilation for cats, birds, rodents and rabbits.
She pleaded not guilty to all 12 charges and appeared in Lindsay court before Justice of the Peace Carl Young.
Crown prosecutor James McGrath brought two local veterinarians, Dr. Claude Morris and Dr. Richard Maser, and local Ontario Prevention of Cruelty Against Animals agent and volunteer Lynne Florence to the stand as witnesses in the Crown’s case.
All three described living conditions for the animals, with Dr. Morris and Ms Florence providing first-hand experience from the scene. All described what they experienced dealing with the animals at the triage location.
The cages were described as filthy, with rabbit cages so feces-filled that it was impossible to separate from the bedding and bird cages covered in feces; several inches thick one witness testified. Some birds had bald spots where they had been “feather picked,” court heard, but it was unclear whether they had done it to themselves due to stress or had been targeted by other birds in the cramped cages.
Dr. Morris noted he did not see any ventilation equipment or any open windows in the house, explaining that, “air quality is critical to a bird,” adding the ammonia in the air could lead to respiratory tract damage. He also did not notice any signs that any people were actually living in the home either, although he did admit on cross examination that he hadn’t inspected the entire home.
“There’s just no way one person could provide love and care and attention to all those animals,” testified Dr. Maser.
“It was a like a storage facility.”
Dr. Morris agreed, adding that, in his professional opinion, “It would take several people full time to look after that number of animals,” and that, given the space, 15 to 20 animals would have been the maximum appropriate amount in that size house.
Dr. Maser went even further, estimating that, in his opinion, it would take four to six people working seven days a week to care for all those animals.
Mr. McGrath initially wanted to present pictures to the court, however, since he was unprepared to identify the photographer or exactly when the pictures were taken, Justice Young ruled they could not be shown.
In spite of the cramped and allegedly unsanitary living conditions, both veterinarians testified that most of the animals were in good health, with some being a little thin and many having overgrown nails.
“No animal is going to die because their nails haven’t been trimmed, but it’s just an indicator that proper care has not been taken,” Dr. Maser testified.
And although Dr. Morris explained the significant risk of disease with that many animals in such close quarters, he added that in his examinations, “I did not find any direct diseases,” in the animals.
During his cross-examinations, defence attorney Jim Hauraney noted that Ms Cielecki had been a client of both veterinarian witnesses and brought forward records showing that she had spent thousands of dollars to get a wide variety of animals medical attention, including a rabbit with a tooth problem back in 2004.
When he had Ms Cielecki as a client for 10 months in 2004 and 2005, Dr. Morris testified, “I had no doubt that she cared for her animals.”
Under cross-examination, Dr. Morris agreed that it is logical that if there was a fire, animals would be scared and possibly defecate more in their cages, but added that he still believed, based on the volume of feces, it was more a matter of days or weeks since they had been cleaned.
Dr. Morris also admitted he had no way of knowing how long the animals had been living in the house, but added, “I don’t think it would take a long period of time for an animal to be distressed due to poor ventilation.”
The other veterinarian was questioned about how he could make assumptions about the size and condition of the house if he had not attended as well as about the fact that Ms Cielecki had spent lots of money at his clinic on her animals.
“It’s my impression that Ms Cielecki has two sets of animals,” he testified, adding that the defendant did seem to take care of the animals she brought in during the five years she was a client, but added that he did not feel the animals he saw from the house were taken care of in that way.
Following the completion of the Crown’s case Thursday, Mr. Hauraney filed a motion of non suit, essentially asking for all the charges to be dismissed for lack of evidence.
The following day, Justice Young granted the motion in the case of the first four counts of cats, rabbits, rodents and birds being in distress, as well as failing to provide sanitary living conditions for the cats and rodents and failing to provide proper ventilation for the cats, based on the evidence he had heard. He upheld the remaining five charges.
“It’s not my job to imagine what happened out there,” the Justice told the lawyers.
“I have to base it on what you bring to me.”
Based on Justice Young’s ruling, Mr. McGrath moved to re-open the Crown’s case. Both lawyers were instructed to provide case study for their respective positions and a decision is expected March 8.